Yep, it’s a brochure for the spinal specialists at a Shanghai hospital … a brochure that says your golf swing could be radically improved by their medical intervention.

Now on one level, I find this genius.

I really do.

Whereas most people put up with a bad back, they’ve recognised a group of people who won’t. Or at least could be easily convinced not too.

Not because they care about the state of their spine or their overall health … but because they are competitive. And given playing golf in China means you have to have a ton of cash, the hospital know they’re targeting a group of people who are likely to have the money to pay for it.

In some ways, that’s brilliant ‘audience’ targeting. On the other, it’s pretty sad.

Not just because we have a hospital looking to profit from the vain, but that these people value their sporting prowess more than their overall wellbeing.

That said, I still grudgingly respect what these guys have done – especially when I’ve seen so many client briefs over the years, that say they want to target anyone as opposed to being meaningful to someone.

Which all serves as a valuable reminder that the best brands mean everything to someone not something to everyone.

In other words, they focus on the culture of the category, not purely focused on appealing to the potential users of the category.

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

But if “the best brands mean everything to someone not something to everyone” doesn’t that imply reliance on heavy users and loyalty? What’s wrong with meaning quite a lot to a lot of people? That doesn’t have to be bland does it?

Good point John. But I don’t believe loyalty automatically translates to heavy usage, but it should always mean being emotionally significant with the audience. There are many products that enjoy heavy usage that owe their success more to routine and distribution than loyalty.

Yes, but my point is that the amount of someones for whom a brand means everything is going to be relatively few and thus to make a significant profit you’re going to require them to buy lots of the stuff at high margins.

I agree with the underlying point you’re making, but it does come with business implications. If you don’t have usage and profit, you don’t have a business let alone a brand.

I agree John … that was both Apple and Guinness’ problem. I’m simply responding to your point about ‘heavy usage’, which I don’t necessarily agree with, but acknowledge ‘liking but not buying’ is not something any brand wants. Or needs.